Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	covenant_n	law_n	write_v	2,528	5	6.5761	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44801	Oaths no gospel ordinance but prohibited by Christ being in answer to A. Smallwood, D.D. to his book lately published, being a sermon preached at Carlile, 1664, wherein he hath laboured to prove swearing lawful among Christians, his reasons and arguments are weighed and answered, and the Doctrines of Christ vindicated against the conceptions and interpretations of men, who would make it void / by a sufferer for Christ and his doctrine, F.H.	Howgill, Francis, 1618-1669.	1666 (1666)	Wing H3174; ESTC R16291	80,066	92

one shepherd and one fold for them both and no longer and they were never given to the Gentiles to observe and therefore for ought I can perceive many would have the Gentile Christians who never were under the Law neither the Ordinances of the first Covenant neither ever given to them yet they would compell the Christians to live as do the Jewes and to observe their Ordinances and therefore are greatly to be blamed Gal 2. 13 14. Therefore we do not look upon any swearing to be now a duty under the Gospel among true Christians truly such as some swearing was once under the Law but affirme all swearing to be now a sin because forbidden by the positive law of Christ under the Gospel who by his death ended the right of that and many more legal rites and Rudiments which who so doth observe now as Christians doth it not without sin and guilt and superstition and therefore S. Fisher that faithful servant of God who suffred in bonds til death for his Testimony even in this particular saith well That that sort of swearing which was not sin simpliciter in its nature under the Law is now a sin upon the account of Christs universal prohibition of all swearing who was of authority to put to an end as he did by his death unto the Law And therefore that sort of service and worship which stood in outward observations which was a duty because commanded under the Law and no sin in their own nature neither were evil in themselves nor in any respect conducing thereto as they were observed but had some signal good in them once and yet who observes them now as service of God makes Christ of so little effect to himself as that he profits him nothing at all I hope A. S. will not deny but these things are forbidden in the new Testament which sometime were not evil in their own nature but now are evil when the Substance is come in whom they all end and therefore S. F. his argument is not vain but of force And yet let A. S. know that there were many things observed and done not only by the Jewes but by them that believed in Christ and thought well of him while he was present with them and yet did not see to the end of these things which were shadows and signes and good as once commanded and had no evil in them but were good as commanded and for the end for which they were ordain'd which afterwards in the more full growth and knowledge in the Mystery of Christianity they came more to be seen thorough and that was felt in which they all ended and though Christ came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and to observe the Ordinances commanded in that Covenant to fulfill that which was written of him Psal. 40. 6. In the volume of the Book it is written I am come to do thy will O God And further he said himself It behoveth us to fulfill all Righteousness and that which was commanded but this was before he was offred up and was as a midle dispensation betwixt the ending of the Law and publishing of the Gospel yet howbeit Christ knew it and did speak of it at some time that those things that had been sometime commanded Deut. 12. 5. and was good as they stood related to the end wherefore they were commanded instance the Worship at Jerusalem and the service there and the place where God had promis'd to place his name yet Christ said as foreknowing the end of all the aforesaid Worship which appertained to that Covenant and therfore he said to the Woman Joh. 4. 23. but the hour cometh and now is when the true Worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth for the Father seekes such to worship him and 24. vers God is a spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth 2 Cor. 3. 17. From hence it is clearly evident for this was before he was offred up that then was the time that neither at Jerusalem nor in the Mountain of Samaria it shall be only said they worship the Father though at Jerusalem was the place Deut. 1. 1 2 5. of worship formerly and the Jewes held it then and the worship was that which was commanded to wit Sacrifices and Offrings and many other legal Services which belonged to them to perform according to the command of God and if swearing or oathes was any part of the service of God as in that Covenant as we with A. S. doth grant Deutr. 10. 20. You shall fear the Lord and serve him and swear by his name then I say that swearing amongst the rest of the worship is included but saith Christ neither at Jerusalem nor this Mountain but they that worship shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth so that the time was then but came on more afterwards to be fulfilled that both the place and the worship and service that belonged to the place they should no more worship the Father with and in but in the spirit and in the truth and this may be in answer to that which A. S. makes a great adoe with in his Book how that Christ said swear not at all it was before his death and therefore they that argue saith he that swearing was prohibited only and ended in Christs death cannot plead that all Oathes was prohibited but that command of Christ Mat. 5. because he spake this in his life time I say so did he this Jo. 20. 21 22 23. And he may as well argue that Christ destroyed the place of worship at Jerusalem and the Worship also and came not to fulfill it as he saith he did and why but because he spoke this before he was crucified and so did he swear not at all and why may not A. S. conclude with us that this is a commodious place to interpret and explain Christs meaning in those words in the 5th Mat. 23 and 24. and so the words may truly be understood thus yee have heard that it hath been said of old time thou shalt not forswear thy self but shalt performe unto the Lord thine Oathes Exod. 20. 7. and Deutr. 5. 11. but the hour cometh and now is when I say unto you that say more then the Law hath said swear not at all neither by Heaven nor by the Earth but let your yea be yea and your nay nay for whatsoever is more then these cometh of evil and yet whatever may or can be said A. S. will need conclude that all swearing is not forbiden and why because it hath been the practise of holy Men and also an Angel this Argument is of little force so was it the practise of holy Men to offer Sacrifice and burn Incense and as for the swearing of the Angel Dan. 12. and Revel 10. 6. to prove the lawfulness of some swearing these hath been answered over and over and over again though A. S. will take no notice

him in his life neither can it properly be said to be repealed Reply Though I do not argue that Christ abolished the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws once commanded nor abrogated them yet Bishop Gauden doth who attain'd if not to a degree of knowledge and learning yet to a degree of promotion above A. S. in his Book which he wrote for the information of the Quakers about swearing he saith in his own words Christ came to fulfill the Moral Law however he came in a way of fulfilling to abrogate the Ceremonial yea and the Politick Lawes too belonging to the Jewes policy in Church and State and herein is the Bishop and the Doctor at odds the Bishop said he abrogated the Ceremonial Law and Judicial Law too belonging to the Iewes Policy and State But Doctor Smallwood says he denies his Assertion for says he We were never under the Judicial Law and what was never imposed need not be abolished So then what remains for me to say but this If Swearing was any part of the Iudicial Law or did belong to their Political Estate as it is the judgment of many but it is evident that swearing was used by the witness before Iudges in Israel in those days to try out their matters according to commandment given of God as is evident from 19. Deut. in the whole Chapter and divers other places then by this argument A. S. hath made he hath overthrown himself for he saith we are no Iewes nor in Canaan and so never imposed and what was never imposed need no abolishing and it is as I have said manifest that Oaths had relation to judicial proceedings and to the service of God too in that Covenant which was shadowy and consisted much in outward signes and figures but the substance is Christ. So then instead of proving swearing under the Gospel lawful he hath by his argument proved it never injoyned unto the Gentiles neither indeed was it either ever commanded or commended unto the Gentiles who believed or they reproved for not observing it that ever we read of by Christ or his Apostles or Ministers in the first and purest times of Christianity for to Jacob he gave his Law and to Israel his Statutes to every Nation he did not so no not to Moab Ammon nor the Canaanites neither the Gentiles and though he seem to plead hard for swearing under the Gospel yet he falls short in his proof except he took his own reasons and arguments which divers of them are but imaginary in the foundation of his discourse he hath taken such great compass as there is not an universal unlimited prohibition of all manner of Swearing but what this manner of swaring is it is very uncertain somtimes he makes it this and sometimes that sometimes he saith it is no Oath though in the form thereof there be not I swear or God be not named or by God doth not always signifie an Oath and other where he seems to affirm it to be an Oath but when an impartial eye hath sounded and tryed to the bottom what this swearing is that brings so much glory to God and so much good to our Neighbour that he so vehemently contends for that ought to be observed as well as Gods fear and service it is but their own traditions and inventions for that under the Law will not serve as the Lord lives or that he calls swearing under the Gospel will not serve the Lord is witness or I speak the truth in Christ or this is truth in the presence of God or the like none of these will serve But though he and the Rulers do say they are Oaths yet when at any time we have proffered willingly to declare the truth in this or that particular cause or to make as ample confession in demonstration for clearing any cause in debate that hath either conduced to the glory of God or the good and profit of any particular Man in the Nation among whom we converse and not without some attestation of God or of his wisdom power and presence yet it would never yet he received but reckoned as insufficient though both the Rulers of this age and A. S. have sayed it it might be that in private it might but in Judicature never was received though I do believe the most doth believe we dare not lie in ordinary communication much less in Judicature yet we have been set aside as objects of wrath as deluded erronious factious seditious contemners of Law obstructors of legal proceedings except we would lay our hand upon a Bible and kiss it and say I swear and by the Contents of the Book and so help me God or else fined imprisoned for term of life our Lands and Goods confiscated and we sentenced to be banished our Wives and Children ruinated Husband and Wife parted Children and Parents separated and such monsters of Christians have we to deal withal in this age and how many brought into this sad condition in England as little A. S. knows as cares But for ought I know that he and such as he in such publick discourses as this of his hath blown the sparks and hath kindled a flame in the Rulers and incensed them and stirred them up to severity and harshness against them who fear the Lord and doth maintain peace with all Men as much as in them lyeth and keeps their Consciences void of offence towards God which makes us to chuse rather all this hardship then to offend the Lord who serve and fear his Name and reverence it more then they who seem to honour it and pretends Gods honour thorow their swearing But to make amends for this A. S. he saith the Magistrates must act by the Law and that enjoynes such a forme of swearing and they cannot allow it Unto that I answer it had been a more necessary discourse for A. S. to have exhorted the Magistrates if the Law had been answered in the substance not to be so severe in the forme and also to have told them where any Law was made contrary to the Law of God either in matter or forme The Consciences of believers could not yield obedience thereunto when it was repugnant unto the Law of God and not according to the forme thereof and in such cases to be wary and he and the rest of the Clergy to have advised with the Rulers and Law-makers and to have informed them from whom they receive such great incomes and revenues for the preservation and peace of all Men that they need not stand so much upon the forme seeing that so many conscientious people questioned it so that there needed not such tying up to forme under such great and heavy penalties as banishment confiscation and perpetual imprisonment but have informed them so that the truth might have been found out and no judicial proceedings hindered which I am sure may be without any swearing true testimony never being denyed when required by any Magistrate and let bua a penalty be

that depart from this great iniquity are become a prey I say it had been more time for A. S. to have used his utmost endeavours this way rather then to have opposed Christ's Doctrine and added affliction to the bonds of conscientious sufferers who dare neither swear nor lie But not to digress A. S. he would make the Fathers as he doth with Christ and the Apostles he would make all dance after his Pipe and make them all of his mind and construe and interpret all their words to his end though never intended and therefore he says they were not cautelous enough and so doth with them as he doth with Christ he makes their words one thing and their intentions another though saith he Origen in his 25. Tract upon Math. says that Christ did forbid all swearing yet he himself swears in his Book against Celsus for he said God is witness of my conscience and Athanatius though he declaimed against swearing yet in his Apology to Constantious he swears again and again and why he wrote as the Apostle did the Lord is witness and Christ is witness and these must needs be oaths and voluntary oaths it 's not probable that they should use voluntary oaths when they declaimed against all Oaths and therefore Origen saith It behoves not a man who lives according to the Gospel to swear at all And Jerome the Gospel truth admits not of an Oath Likewise Chrysostome who was Bishop of Constantinople in Commendations of whom much is said in the Ecclesiastical Histories Acts and Monuments vol. 21. fol. 70. too blames them greatly who brings forth a Book to swear upon charging the Clerks that in no wise they constraine any body to swear whether they think a man swear true or false saying it 's a sin to swear well So that not only swearing upon a Book was reprehended but even all swearing such as A. S. calls lawful Theophilact upon the place in controversie Learn hence that under the Law it was no evil for men to swear but since the coming of Christ it is evil as Circumcision and in some what ever is Jewdeical to omit Wickliffe John Hus and Jerome of Prague who were faithful Men and righteous in their Generation which the Reformed Churches is beholding to for their Testimony in other weighty things against the Church of Rome though A. S. will not own them in this but rather takes part with them who burned his Bones 41. years after his decease and burnt his Books and these Articles condemned by the Council of Constance who also burned John Hus and Jerome of Prague who maintained his Articles that all Oaths be made for any contract or evil bargain betwixt man and man be unlawful under the Gospel and Walter Bevite whose testimony with many others was that as the perfection of the Old Testament was not to forswear themselves so the perfection of Christ was not to swear at all because they are so commanded of Christ whose commandement in no case must be broken the Testimony of many worthy Men and godly sufferers at this time is suitable to many of the Fathers before mentioned But this A. S. calls error who said so the Church of Rome and the Council of Constance with whom A. S. joynes rather then the sufferers of Christ and they who hold it an error not to swear at all and yet no error to break it when they have a mind and dispense with it as the Papists doth to this very day And these Fathers of the Church doubtless were the best of Men in that declining age and were neither dunces nor devils but understood by the signification of Gods spirit in them the Doctrine of Christ and that which was consentaneous thereunto was witnessed by divers in after ages before mentioned which A. S. would condemn as Hereticks and why the Church of Rome had called them so and them that sat at the sterne who always called themselves Orthodox and others Heterodox that did not sing to the same tune in swearing and every thing else when they had once got up into a pompious lordly dominion over Mens faith but what doth this prove nothing at all and what doth this prove which A. S. inserts in his Marginal notes that the Ministers who are inferiour in Hungary and Transilvania swear Canonical obedience to their Bishops or the Church of England or the Confessions of Helvetia Basil or others whom he calls reformed what of all this what doth this prove from the Scripture of truth or as to the convincement of them who hold it unlawful to swear under the Gospel because Christ hath prohibited it by his Doctrine what is all that A. S. hath said in his Arguments to dissenters satisfaction who know hundreds of things wherein as much as they fall out and fight even to blood with each other about their fancied formalities they all agree in against the light and power of godliness and against the very appearance of the Image of him in his holiness who is the substantial truth it self we say what is all this to some that dissents from A. S. his judgment and others he calls reformed whose faith stands higher then the wisdom and thoughts of Men who cannot consent so as to lead their faith and reason captive after them to try this or any other truth seeing it is the gift of God and the inspiration of the Almighty gives understanding though the Church of Rome and you agree in this though you damne one another in other matters what is this to us it shewes only they erred from the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and you in this and many other things are not separated from them and thy conclusion which thou accords with is false that though God in the Old Testament commanded it yet it doth not follow that Christ in the new did not forbid it neither that Christ and his Apostles practised it who were under another Covenant and for ought can be perceived by A. S. by that he calls voluntary swearing which he hath no ground for though in other places he seem to condemn vain swearing and customary oaths yet in this he looks not like himself but seems to tollerate a kind of oaths we find no mention made of in the New Testament and yet we shall not conclude as A. S. says that all were so ignorant as not to understand Christ's mind nor so wicked as to teach the quite contrary to his mind for it is manifest many have been of the mind of Christ in former ages and latter though we shall never strive to bring in all the world or the heathen or Nations that became as waters after the publication of the Gospel nor that Rable which he calls the Christian world which hath wondered after the Beast Rev. 13. 4. and yet there hath been still some Testimony borne through ages unto the Doctrine of Christ and Christs Doctrine stands in force and in that latitude that he intended